HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Betts signs contract extension

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-04-2007, 10:22 PM
  #51
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Prescription View Post
...who do we have that would take Betts' place in the line-up? I didn't know we had any other 4th line center prospects who are as good defensively as he is. I mean, if we do, enlighten me as to who.
You DO realize that he is here as a 3rd line center and not a 4th line center? And that will probably not change while Renney is here. There are several people I would try in that role, both this year and next, instead of him.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2007, 10:31 PM
  #52
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
You DO realize that he is here as a 3rd line center and not a 4th line center? And that will probably not change while Renney is here. There are several people I would try in that role, both this year and next, instead of him.
I have no problem with Betts being re-signed, as long as he stays healthy, he can always be traded if someone comes along and beats him out of a job. But, the problem I have is that he plays too many minutes for the type of player he is. Move him to the 4th line and play him in key defensive situations and I love him; play him on the 3rd line and I have reservations about his use.

Brooklyn Ranger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2007, 06:22 AM
  #53
Taz
Registered User
 
Taz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Letchworth
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,235
vCash: 500
I don't mind Betts, but there are so many 'Can't score, non physical, won't fight' players in the bottom six and he is playing in a 3rd line role.

Taz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2007, 10:12 AM
  #54
Doyle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taz View Post
I don't mind Betts, but there are so many 'Can't score, non physical, won't fight' players in the bottom six and he is playing in a 3rd line role.
Have you watched him recently? He hasn't beeen amazingly physical, but I can think of a few moments in the Devils game at least where I was thinking who is that large guy throwing nasty hits? Oh yea, it was Betts, at least the number matched...

Doyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2007, 10:43 AM
  #55
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyranger61494 View Post
Betts is the kind of player this franchise overlooked prior to the lockout when they stockpiled offensive minded players and "name" players. Like everyone else has said, it is a modest raise and as of right now, he is not really blocking any prospect.
Exactly, in Sweden we call them players that carrys the waterbottles. You can defenitly afford 4-5 players in a lineup that basically can be zero point players, if they get any points its a bonus.

Look how the goals are scored in the NHL. Like 80-90% of the goals are just hard work and bounces. Whats tough is getting the puck into the attacking zone, instead of playing in your own defensive zone.

I defenitly belives in having a 3rd line with two all defensive neutral zone players and one offensive player, instead of having three guys that are good both offensivly and defensivly. Its of course better if all players are great at everything, but they are more expensive and much harder to get, and one great offensive player -- like a Huselius/Hudler -- with a Betts and a Ortmayer could in the end score as much as a line with three decent 2-way players. Thats especially the case in a game without a redline were its easier to make quick transitions.

So I defenitly feel that Ortmayer and Betts have allot of value, without contributing offensivly.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2007, 11:28 AM
  #56
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Exactly, in Sweden we call them players that carrys the waterbottles. You can defenitly afford 4-5 players in a lineup that basically can be zero point players, if they get any points its a bonus.

Look how the goals are scored in the NHL. Like 80-90% of the goals are just hard work and bounces. Whats tough is getting the puck into the attacking zone, instead of playing in your own defensive zone.

I defenitly belives in having a 3rd line with two all defensive neutral zone players and one offensive player, instead of having three guys that are good both offensivly and defensivly. Its of course better if all players are great at everything, but they are more expensive and much harder to get, and one great offensive player -- like a Huselius/Hudler -- with a Betts and a Ortmayer could in the end score as much as a line with three decent 2-way players. Thats especially the case in a game without a redline were its easier to make quick transitions.

So I defenitly feel that Ortmayer and Betts have allot of value, without contributing offensivly.
I think you can get away with 2 or 3 guys who don't score but I think when you get to 5 you're running into a proble,.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2007, 12:25 PM
  #57
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 73,452
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
You DO realize that he is here as a 3rd line center and not a 4th line center? And that will probably not change while Renney is here. There are several people I would try in that role, both this year and next, instead of him.
TB -- IMO, he's ONLY the 3rd line center because we do not have a 2nd line center. Once that is solved and Cullen is moved down, then he is finally playing in his place.

It's not his fault that our team is too dumb to acquire a 2nd line center.

Dubinsky would definately look good on the 3rd line, but as far as the 4th line goes, I'd rather not waste our top line prospects and leave players like Betts for that role.

3rd of:

Hollweg - Cullen - Callahan

4th of:

Ward/Hossa - Betts - Ortmeyer

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2007, 01:12 PM
  #58
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej20 View Post
Always been a fan of Betts in the role that he plays. If you keep him in the correct role, he does it very well.

No one on this team right now can win faceoffs like he does.
Immonen: 64.8%
Cullen: 53.5%
Shanahan: 52.8%
Betts: 49.7%

I'm not trying to start a debate here but if we are going to fluff the guy let's be honest here. His faceoffs are not his strong suit. He is capable and that is it. And I do understand that he is put out there in tough situations for faceoffs and blah blah blah, but I just don't see patting him on the back for less than 50% on draws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
You DO realize that he is here as a 3rd line center and not a 4th line center? And that will probably not change while Renney is here. There are several people I would try in that role, both this year and next, instead of him.
That's what is getting me on this thread. Every post praising him says something like "He's a great 4th line center." Well, when was the last time he played 4th line center? I do like this deal and I don't really have anything bad to say about it (as far as terms), but what I don't like is that he will be either 2nd or 3rd line center as long as Renney is calling the shots and frankly I don't want Betts on this team if that is his role.

So I agree with Jon in that it isn't his fault he isn't used right, but at the same time I'll reserve my right to not like the potential 2 years of mismanagement this deal will bring. It's not a knock on Betts, it's on the management. That is the only real case where he is blocking prospects (purposely didn't say youth).

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2007, 01:38 PM
  #59
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,487
vCash: 500
I can't knock the move totally but I just don't know why a 3rd/4th line center needs to be locked up..Did they offer Moore the same deal this offseason? Maybe it's me but I think Moore is a better player. I also think out of Moore and Betts Moore was the one that had more trade value. We aren't talking about the picture of health here in Betts..

with that being said..

This a contract and a player the Rangers could be moved if somebody better comes along. Betts is a decent player and important penalty killer.

I don't agree with Renney but right now in his eyes we don't have a better option for the 3rd line. Betts might just turn out to be the teams 4th line center this season if a trade is made.

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2007, 01:57 PM
  #60
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
I dunno, personally I like Betts more.


Moore to be has the edge for production in the same role, but to me Betts is better defensivly, at doing the little things and over the long haul at faceoffs.

Moore to be seems to get a lot of attention because he is always burning rubber and always moving but I've always felt that it seems like a lot of wasted energy that really hides that he might not really be doing much of anything on a given shift.

I think Moore stands out more because of his skating.

The real question with Betts is and always will be health. He looked like he was over that last year until he got hurt and we'll see what happens this year. That's really the big strike against Betts.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2007, 02:50 PM
  #61
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Does the organization really need Immonen and Betts? Does this signing coupled with Jarkko's inability to work his way back into the lineup say anything about his future here?

Melrose_Jr. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2007, 07:41 PM
  #62
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
I dunno, personally I like Betts more.


Moore to be has the edge for production in the same role, but to me Betts is better defensivly, at doing the little things and over the long haul at faceoffs.

Moore to be seems to get a lot of attention because he is always burning rubber and always moving but I've always felt that it seems like a lot of wasted energy that really hides that he might not really be doing much of anything on a given shift.

I think Moore stands out more because of his skating.

The real question with Betts is and always will be health. He looked like he was over that last year until he got hurt and we'll see what happens this year. That's really the big strike against Betts.
I think Moore is more annoying to play against and that makes him a better 4th line center..

We are really debating a $600,000 a year 4th line center though....

Melrose

I don't think it's Betts that's blocking Immonen from getting time..I think it's Hall, Hossa, Ward, and to a lesser extent Orr..

It's clear Renney doesn't like Immonen and I don't think Renney is 100% at fault for this..I think Immonen is a better option than ANY of the above guys because he can win faceoffs (which this team is awful at) but he is very up and down..

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2007, 07:43 PM
  #63
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr. View Post
Does the organization really need Immonen and Betts? Does this signing coupled with Jarkko's inability to work his way back into the lineup say anything about his future here?
I do not think that inability is the proper turn. Rather I think that it is Renney's unwillingness to play him, no matter what he sees on the ice.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2007, 07:46 PM
  #64
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Prescription View Post
TB -- IMO, he's ONLY the 3rd line center because we do not have a 2nd line center. Once that is solved and Cullen is moved down, then he is finally playing in his place.
I don't think do. Immonen looked better than Cullen has as a 2nd line center. Betts is not a 3rd line center becuase this team does not have a 2nd line center. He is a 3rd line center becuase that is what Renney stubbornly insists that he is. Just like he insists that, despite all other evidence, Cullen is a 2nd line center/player. Immonen has shown more than enough to play either on the 2nd or 3rd line, but becuase Renney is stuck with the thought that becuase he envisions Cullen as a 2nd liner and Betts as a 3rd liner, nothing else is happening.
Quote:
It's not his fault that our team is too dumb to acquire a 2nd line center.
Again, Immonen has shown enough to be given a chance to play on the 3rd line, even if Renney cannot move past the stupidity of playing Cullen on the 2nd line. Betts should be on the 4th line, any way you slice it.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2007, 07:51 PM
  #65
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
I do not think that inability is the proper turn. Rather I think that it is Renney's unwillingness to play him, no matter what he sees on the ice.
In a perfect world once Ortmeyer can kill penalties the 4th line would be

Ward Immonen Ortmeyer

As much as i like Hossa I think he is the odd man out or at least should be.

I wasn't for Immonen being called up (as we all know) but he is here and showed the abilty to win faceoffs and he played decent..at a minimum as good as Hall, Ward, and Hossa......

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2007, 08:19 PM
  #66
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post
I think Moore is more annoying to play against and that makes him a better 4th line center..

We are really debating a $600,000 a year 4th line center though....
Be honest it's not really a blip on my radar.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2007, 08:24 PM
  #67
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
I do not think that inability is the proper turn. Rather I think that it is Renney's unwillingness to play him, no matter what he sees on the ice.

Gotta disagree TB, Immonen really did his camoflouge routine after his strong first couple of games.

My opinion of Immonen hasn't really changed all that much. I still don't think Immonen is a long term player and even now seems to show the signs of a guy who can come up for a cup of coffee and play a few games but ultimately doesn't bring enough to that position.

Cullen is certainly not God's gift to hockey, but I do think he is a better player than Immonen who seems to in an unfortunate between stage in that it still seems like there are other centers who better at a specific role than him.

Not quite offensive enough for the second, not quite defensive enough for the third and just seems to be one of those "just off" players.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2007, 12:21 PM
  #68
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 23,419
vCash: 500
Awards:
I have no problem with this move. I think Betts is decent, and though I'm constantly in favor of a fire sale that invariably results in us suiting up 10 rookies, I recognize that is unrealistic. He has been a solid player for us, IMO, and is no liability defensively. Also, if the deal is ~600k as had been speculated, then he could easily be moved if management felt he was blocking someones way up (ha, right).

nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2007, 12:33 PM
  #69
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
I think you can get away with 2 or 3 guys who don't score but I think when you get to 5 you're running into a proble,.
Yeah, maybe its a stretch. I though one on the 2nd line and 2 on both the third and the fourth line. I've seen team built that way have success, were the 3rd player on the lower lines were really offensive.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2007, 02:30 PM
  #70
JRGNYR
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr. View Post
Does the organization really need Immonen and Betts? Does this signing coupled with Jarkko's inability to work his way back into the lineup say anything about his future here?
The knock on Immonen has always been his foot speed, and I think the Rangers still view him as an unproven NHL commodity, whereas Betts has played at this level for a few years and has done his job. I don't necessarily think Betts re-signing is an indictment of Immo, but the Rangers might be hedging their.. um... "bets."


JRGNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2007, 09:05 PM
  #71
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Yeah, maybe its a stretch. I though one on the 2nd line and 2 on both the third and the fourth line. I've seen team built that way have success, were the 3rd player on the lower lines were really offensive.
See I think the problem is that the Rangers just have too many of those type guys. It's like having too many stars and no sandpaper guys.

You can get away with Hollweg's lack of production but when he is on a line with say Ortmeyer that really starts to have an impact. Start piling on Orr, Betts, Hall, Ward, etc. and it's just too much of one thing which is energy but no scoring.

I think you can have two, three at the most of those type of players but at any more than and you know have almost 1/2 your team which REALLY can't score.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:08 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.